This web-log, begun in 2011 for the purpose of clarifying the true nature of the work and views of Dr. William Pierce, and to counter misrepresentations thereof, is not affiliated with any organization.

Pages

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

"Whose Values Shall Rule?" is a commentary by Dr. William Pierce which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Dr. Pierce addressed a meeting of the Ridgewood Group, at the Estonian House in New York City, on May 27. He had been asked to speak especially about his book, The Turner Diaries (for which the nom de plume Andrew Macdonald was used). He spoke for about 45 minutes, first pointing out that the purpose of the book is neither to entertain nor to present a plan for a revolution. The book, he said, is intended solely to serve as a medium for certain ideas, some expressed implicitly and others explicitly. Those ideas deal with human behavior, motivation, and values. The following material has been excerpted from the latter portion of Dr. Pierce’s New York address:

* * *

Whose Values Shall Rule?

by Dr. William Pierce

IT IS IMPORTANT for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process -- at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.

That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were -- that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.

There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.

This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reasons which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.

The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

An insightful commentary on the long-term damaging effects of alcohol and illegal drugs on our society.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TEN YEARS AGO the student who used illegal drugs was likely to be looked upon by his peers as both a criminal and a person with serious personal problems -- as was more often than not the case.

Certainly, there were young, White drug users before 1960. But, outside a few communities, they were a rarity. Marijuana was almost as scarce on most university campuses as was heroin.

It is, in fact, quite difficult for today's average undergraduate to imagine just how drastically student attitudes toward drugs have changed in the few short years during which drug usage has passed from a curiosity to a fact of everyday life.

Most Significant Development

Other things -- attire, jargon, sexual attitudes -- also underwent a fairly radical transformation during the 1960s. But the vast and sudden increase in the use of drugs by young people easily stands as the most significant social development, not only of the last decade but of our generation. If that statement sounds like an exaggeration now, it certainly will not a year from now, so rapidly is the phenomenon still developing.

The editor should confess at this point, other than a few puffs of pot to see what the stuff tastes like, he has never had any drug “experiences.” For that matter, he has never smoked tobacco and his alcoholic consumption is limited to an occasional beer.

Thus, he cannot write on some drug-related matters with the same sort of authority a member of Alcoholics Anonymous can boast of when warning others against demon rum, for example.

On the other hand, he is by no means a total outsider to the drug scene. He has many friends who use, or once used, pot regularly, just as he has many friends who use tobacco and alcohol.

Drugs a Social Evil

One of the four basic points of the NYA [National Youth Alliance, predecessor to the National Alliance -- Ed.] program states our unequivocal opposition to illegal drugs and to those who promote their use. This opposition is by no means based on religious or “moral” considerations or on any sort of “conservative” foot-dragging where something new and different is concerned.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

A Cosmotheist lecture given by Dr. William Pierce on October 24, 1976 at the office of the National Alliance in Arlington, Virginia

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I DON'T THINK I need to convince anyone here that what we are trying to do is very difficult. It is obvious from our own experience of the last few months that it is not easy to build up our numbers even to those needed for a truly viable organization, which I talked about a few weeks ago. It is not easy to bring new people to our meetings in the numbers we would like.

The difficulties we experience tempt some of us, I am sure, to place less emphasis on the fundamental Truth we express in our Affirmation and to turn instead toward gimmicks of one sort or another. If people will not listen to our Truth, some of us may think, then we should talk to them about things they are interested in: income taxes, school busing, pornography, abortion, the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, there is no doubt that, right now, we could win a greater response from the general public if we stopped talking about our Purpose, our Truth and concentrated all our efforts on one of those topics. We would also be more successful, in a certain sense, if we were careful not to mention the Jews or to talk about race. We could win more people, in other words -- we could be a bigger organization -- if we would behave like conservatives or right wingers.

The reason is that most people have always been more interested in concrete, personal things like money, sex, or their own safety and comfort than anything else. And they have always been shy of anything controversial, anything that might be inconvenient, or even dangerous, for them to get mixed up with. That’s why conservatism has always been more popular that radicalism. And it’s also why the two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have always been even more popular. They appeal to the public’s basest instincts. They promise each segment of the population more of what most of them really want: more money, more comfort, more security.

Now, I’m sure no one expects us to try to out-Democrat the Democrats or out-Republican the Republicans. But we must also understand that, regardless of the difficulties it means for us now, we must not try to out-conservative the conservatives and right wingers either.

Because, while it is true that a conservative appeal, based on immediate self-interest, may win us more people in the short run, in the long run no appeal based primarily on self-interest can save us as a race. No ad hoc program, no matter how cleverly disguised, is going to achieve our long-range goals for us. We are not going to sneak a sack over the Jews’ heads under the pretense of an anti-busing or an anti-tax movement.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

THE ENEMIES of America and of Europe -- the enemies of our people everywhere -- have two guiding principles, two imperatives. The first is to continue backing the racially destructive programs now in place while introducing newer and even more destructive programs through the media and through government legislation. The second imperative is to prevent or neutralize any effective opposition to their programs: that is, to make it impossible for our people to defend themselves.

For example, just two of the racially destructive programs they already have in place are, one, keeping our borders open to immigrants from the non-White areas of the world and, two, doing everything they can to encourage miscegenation. Their immigration program, aimed at flooding White areas with non-Whites, is backed primarily through the government. Their miscegenation program, aimed at increasing the degree of racial mongrelization, is backed primarily by their mass media -- although they also use their influence among the Christian clergy and in the educational establishment to enlist the aid of the churches and the schools in pushing the acceptance of miscegenation among their White victims.

A majority of the people they intend to destroy are kept hypnotized by the mass media and offer no resistance. An independent-minded minority, however, are not entirely happy about our enemies' plans and insist on speaking out and sometimes taking other measures against the programs intended to destroy them. These dissidents who speak against our enemies and their plans are described by the media as "haters," as "extremists." Or, if talk turns to action, the dissidents are denounced as "terrorists." In most cases fear of these labels, fear of being called a "hater," is sufficient to keep the dissidents quiet. After all, most independent-minded people, just like the lemmings, are social creatures. They desire the goodwill of their neighbors. They don't want to be hated or reviled or even feared. They have families and jobs. They don't want their colleagues or coworkers to consider them odd or dangerous. They don't want their friends and acquaintances among the lemmings to shun them.

The media bosses, who are foremost among the enemies of our people, thus have a very powerful weapon in their ability to label arbitrarily as "haters" any dissidents bold enough to speak out against them or their policies or even against the consequences of their policies. Thus, when Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker -- or perhaps I should say, former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker -- spoke out a few weeks ago, he immediately was labeled a "hater" by virtually all of the mass media. His comments about what a multicultural pigsty New York City has become were denounced as "hate speech." The unanimity of the media reaction to Rocker's rather mild comments gives us a clue that these ritual denunciations are a matter of deliberate policy rather than merely spontaneous and individual expressions of disagreement by the media bosses.

In other words, when I or some other dissident says something the media bosses find disagreeable, the disagreeable comment is unanimously labeled "hate speech." It's never a matter of some of them agreeing with it and some disagreeing; they all denounce it as "hate." I don't have to screw up my face and scream, "I hate you," in order to be denounced as a "hater." Almost anything I say is described in all of the mass media as "hate speech," simply because it is not Politically Correct, simply because it deviates from the party line. And believe me, there is a party line.

For example, my organization, the National Alliance, distributes a little index-card size sticker which has printed on it the words: "Earth's most endangered species: the White race -- help preserve it." That's all, except for our name and address.

Monday, July 6, 2015

MAY I be cynical for a few minutes? I hope you don't mind, but with the great democratic ritual of choosing a new President coming up in just a few days now, I can't resist the urge to make a few cynical comments. (ILLUSTRATION: Peter Sichrovsky, author of Born Guilty: Children of Nazi Families)

Of course, it's not just the current Presidential campaign which is the cause for my cynicism. Have you been watching the senatorial campaign in New York? Have you noticed how Mrs. Clinton and the Republican candidate, Rick Lazio, have been falling over one another in their eagerness to apply their lips to the posterior of the Jewish vote?

You certainly have seen what's been going on in Palestine during the past few weeks. Even on American television, which always censors out the most atrocious behavior of the Jews and tries to present the news in the light most favorable to them, the basic pattern has been clear enough: Palestinians have been throwing rocks at the Jews, and the Jews have been shooting and killing Palestinians. Nearly all of those killed over there have been Palestinians. The Jewish news media over here portray the conflict as "Israelis responding to Palestinian violence," in the sense of cops responding to robbers, but it's clear to anyone with eyes and a brain where most of the violence is coming from.

And it's clear how the violence got started again. The most hated Jewish politician over there, Ariel Sharon, deliberately provoked it. When he was in the Israeli military, Sharon used to send his troops into Palestinian villages and refugee camps to butcher unarmed civilians. That sort of behavior helped win him the votes of the raving-mad Orthodox Jews, who bob their heads up and down while praying at the "Wailing Wall" for their tribal god Yahweh to kill all the Gentiles and turn the world over to them, as he promised them 3,000 years ago.

Sharon is no longer an active-duty Israeli general, but he still knows how to win Jewish votes. He showed up at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem back at the beginning of the month with a huge contingent of armed bodyguards and Jewish secret police thugs, who chased away the Moslems who were praying in the mosque there. He swaggered around a bit, expressed his contempt for Moslems in general and Palestinians in particular, and left, but that was enough to infuriate Palestinians and provoke Palestinian boys into throwing rocks at Jewish soldiers, who responded by shooting them dead. Sharon's popularity among religious Jews immediately shot up.

During the fighting a Lebanese militia took three Jewish soldiers as prisoners, and the Jewish media over here immediately began talking about "kidnapped" Jews. When armed soldiers are captured by an opposing armed force in a combat situation, the proper term is "prisoners of war," not "kidnap victims," but the people who put the spin on our news figured "kidnap victims" would be more likely to get sympathy from Americans. They want us to feel sorry for the Israeli soldiers who are shooting Palestinian children rather than for the children who are being shot.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

YOU KNOW, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what's important from what's not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what's happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.

So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.

Here's an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, "Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can't be both, so make up your mind." This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jews are both capitalists and communists -- and neither. They are, first and last, Jews, and that really says it all, if one understands what a Jew is. The average Gentile thinks that a communist must be someone who is a believer in communist ideology, and a capitalist must be someone who is a believer in the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn't occur to him that for many Jews ideology is not something that one actually believes; it is simply a tool which one uses for deceiving non-Jews. The aim always is to acquire wealth and power, and whether one uses capitalist methods and ideology or communist methods and ideology for this purpose depends upon the situation. Regardless of the methods one uses, one remains a Jew. That's what is important.

And of course, most of the people who were trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers represented by the Jews in their midst didn't try to explain that, because most Americans simply wouldn't have understood; it would have been too complicated for them. So the anti-communists simply said: "Watch out! The Jews are communists or are sympathetic to the communists." And that was an oversimplification of the truth.

Here's a more recent example: I have warned Americans that Bill Clinton is a puppet of the Jews, an obedient tool of the Jews, and I have pointed out the fact that most of the important appointments he has made as President have gone to Jews: two Supreme Court justices, his entire foreign policy and national security team, and so on. And I have stated that the Jewish media got him elected in 1992 and then reelected in 1996.